You got it wrong.
Your question should be : Is there a game that can't be run on PIII, at the same time tho will see a benefit going from Win XP x86 to Win XP x64, but won't work on Vista/7 x64 ?
Or something like that...
PIII can't do x64 (just to be clear).

Basicly - Win XP x64 is pointless for games (it gives registers and RAM, but it isn't as stable/compatible as x86 version).
BUT, if you just want to do it cause you can - the road is clear 😀

agent_x007 wrote:

You got it wrong. Your question should be : Is there a game that can't be run on PIII, at the same time tho will see a benefit g […]
Show full quote

You got it wrong.
Your question should be : Is there a game that can't be run on PIII, at the same time tho will see a benefit going from Win XP x86 to Win XP x64, but won't work on Vista/7 x64 ?
Or something like that...
PIII can't do x64 (just to be clear).

Basicly - Win XP x64 is pointless for games (it gives registers and RAM, but it isn't as stable/compatible as x86 version).
BUT, if you just want to do it cause you can - the road is clear 😀

More ram so steam and origin preform better. Xp 32 with my 7900 sli limits xp 32bit to 2.5gb ofbram but on 64 i get all 6gb

Think about dropping one 7900 GTX, it should give you 256MB back.
XP x64 can give you hell in driver depertment tho - check drivers for everything before instalation.

I think I should point out that Win XP x86 can do up to 3GB RAM available with SLI setup : LINK
If you got less than that, it's 100% MB/IMC's fault (BIOS can't adress all of RAM capacity correctly or efficiently enough).

PS. It's kinda long-shot, but try pulling 2x1GB kit out (I assume you got 2x2GB + 2x1GB installed). Maybe it will help BIOS adress more RAM (?).

candle_86 wrote:

More ram so steam and origin preform better. Xp 32 with my 7900 sli limits xp 32bit to 2.5gb ofbram but on 64 i get all 6gb

Then use an OS that was actually developed with usable x64 in mind, like Vista, or better yet, Win7 (as some modern software already starts dropping Vista support). XP x64 was a dead branch of evolution from conception. It was more a proof-of-concept thing than an OS designed to actually be used.

dr_st wrote:

XP x64 was a dead branch of evolution from conception. It was more a proof-of-concept thing than an OS designed to actually be used.

I have no idea why there's so much hate for XP x64, and why people feel like they have to spread such lies about it.
XP x64 was the desktop-variation of Windows Server 2003. Which was obviously far more than a proof-of-concept. It was a server/workstation-class OS targeted at 64-bit CPUs (both x64 and Itanium).

I have used Windows XP x64 since day one, and it was a great OS at the time. Does exactly what you'd expect from an x64 version of XP (pretty much all games worked, main problem was some older games that used a 16-bit installer... you could often get them to work by installing them on another system, and just copying the installed directory).
As far as games go, I believe there's only a handful of games that would run on it in 64-bit mode. Games became 64-bit only fairly recently, and as such, these games generally require Vista/DX10 or better.
Some 64-bit games I played on XP x64 are Far Cry, Half-Life 2 and Crysis 1 (in DX9 mode obviously). They work fine. I believe the 64-bit version of Half-Life 2 is no longer available (at the time, Steam would decided whether to install the 32-bit or 64-bit version depending on what OS you ran... but the Source engine wasn't optimized very well for 64-bit, so while loading times improved, the actual framerates went down. Far Cry and Crysis perform slightly better in 64-bit mode).
Aside from that, I also converted my own D3D and OGL codebases to x64 on XP x64 back in those days.

dr_st wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

More ram so steam and origin preform better. Xp 32 with my 7900 sli limits xp 32bit to 2.5gb ofbram but on 64 i get all 6gb

Then use an OS that was actually developed with usable x64 in mind, like Vista, or better yet, Win7 (as some modern software already starts dropping Vista support). XP x64 was a dead branch of evolution from conception. It was more a proof-of-concept thing than an OS designed to actually be used.

My memory is xp 64 worked pretty well with the 2004+ games i never tried older games with it

I used XP x64 for about 2 years in place of XP x86, by the time it fell apart and required a reinstallation, I felt the x64 version was a mistake to install. It worked very well as any version of XP does, but my problem is it was significantly less compatible with hardware and software than XP x86. I had to find 64-bit versions of most of my software, especially anything that altered the Windows Shell. That and other than increased RAM, XP x64 didn't offer me any improvements or additional features over what XP x86 already did. The one cool thing it did do though was identify as Windows Server 2003 with any software or online services that check your Windows version.

I type this message from XP x86 SP3.

I don't have anything against Windows XP x64, I just don't see the point. Anything that needs the additional RAM or that actually runs 64bit code you can run on Windows 7 x64 as far as I know . Basically if you take any game or any other piece of software there isn't many if any that are most optimal to run on WinXP x64 you would either run it on WinXP 32bit or Windows 7 64bit.

That being said if you want to make things work on XP Pro x64 just for funsy's then go for it. However if your looking for the best OS to run a piece of software on very rarely will WinXP X64 be the answer.

XP 64-bit was alright, I actually used it as my main OS for a while. It had tons of compatibility issues though, particularly with drivers. On a system powerful enough to warrant a 64-bit OS, Windows 7 actually runs more smoothly, and it has much better driver support.

...went with XP x64 for my work PC that I do some gaming on as well. In retrospect, XP x86 would have been a better idea for two reasons. Firstly, there are still security updates being released for it, and secondly, there is still some pretty cool kernel hacks being done for it. XP x64 works well for me though, no complaints. But if you're starting fresh, go for regular XP.

I have WinXP 64 on my Socket 940 system.

Did it only because ATHLON 64 HURR HURR.

Works better than I remember it running.

Well i had 7 64bit on this system and honestly once the updates are installed it just crawls. With XP 64bit it's smooth even after updates. My big reason is Steam and Origin, I want to play some of these games like KOTOR on older hardware that better supports it's features. A 7900GTX still accelerates DX7, 8 and 9 graphics, but that stopped with 8800 Ultra, and DX10 cards only really have DX9 optimizations. But for older DX6 titles my Pentium 3 with an FX5900 blows them away. So pretty much software from about 2001-2006 is what I want to run, games specifically. Drivers where easy enough to get for everything, its an Nforce 500 with a 7900GTX Sli, 64bit drivers have existed since xp 64 was in beta as Nvidia was a launch partner for XP 64 🤣.

I've used XP64 for years since 2005 so ...

the big problem was the lazy companies (like nVidia) not rolling out 64-bit drivers and software firewalls soon enough. 🙁 That's mostly solved by 2007 though

and of course, the usual ntvdm not doing dos16/win16 thing you'd come to expect on newer 64-bit windows

Rhuwyn wrote:

I don't have anything against Windows XP x64, I just don't see the point.

For retro gaming, I agree with this 😀

It was fun trying out the AMD 64 bit patch for Far Cry, but that was pretty much the only thing on my "XP 64 bit" bucket list 😊

candle_86 wrote:

More ram so steam and origin preform better.

Since when do Steam and Origin "perform" better with more RAM..?

I was going to say that most games probably don't have recommended system requirements with more than 4 GB, but it turns out the minimum system requirements for DOOM already lists 8 GB. (Crikey.)

mockingbird wrote:

there is still some pretty cool kernel hacks being done for it.

Kernel hacks for XP 32-bit? What are people doing?

Jorpho wrote:

mockingbird wrote:

there is still some pretty cool kernel hacks being done for it.

Kernel hacks for XP 32-bit? What are people doing?

Well, there's this for one:
http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1706829.html

And there's the >4GB memory hack... But that takes a bit of work to get working properly...

Point is, there's an active modding community for it... XP x64 is toast, nobody's really doing anything with it anymore.

Jorpho wrote:

Since when do Steam and Origin "perform" better with more RAM..? […]
Show full quote

candle_86 wrote:

More ram so steam and origin preform better.

Since when do Steam and Origin "perform" better with more RAM..?

I was going to say that most games probably don't have recommended system requirements with more than 4 GB, but it turns out the minimum system requirements for DOOM already lists 8 GB. (Crikey.)

mockingbird wrote:

there is still some pretty cool kernel hacks being done for it.

Kernel hacks for XP 32-bit? What are people doing?

Steam loaded up for me showing my library takes up about 1gb of ram on its own, I have close to 500 games

I don't know how you're measuring that. Right now on my computer, Task Manager indicates that Steam.exe is taking up 85,000K (i.e. in the "Private Wroking Set" column), and I have close to 1200 games. (Not that I would expect the number of games to make the slightest bit of difference in its memory footprint. Why the heck would it?)

Even if you include the three "steamwebhelper.exe" processes, those still take up less than 100,000K total.

Jorpho wrote:

I was going to say that most games probably don't have recommended system requirements with more than 4 GB, but it turns out the minimum system requirements for DOOM already lists 8 GB. (Crikey.)

Indeed. I guess it's one of the first games that only comes in a 64-bit version.